bob wrote:
MD wrote:


So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.


SACD and DVD-A both offer the possibility of multichannel
sound--certainly a discernible benefit there. But just because a
company markets a "new and improved" product doesn't mean it's
necessarily a better product. That's why we need to look at independent
evaluations, which can be both measurements and (valid, reliable,
repeatable) listening tests. I know of no measureable differences
between Redbook and either hi-rez format that would be audible. Nor do
I know of any confirmed blind listening comparisons demonstrating that
higher resolution digital is audibly distinguishable from Redbook. Do
you? If not, I suggest you hold the ridicule.


How 'bout
this - the industry put out the original red book medium with less than
perfect results but didn't care at the time because most of the people
(of which you are apparently one) couldn't tell the difference or didn't
care. Now the industry is putting out a medium for those who care.
Additionally it seems that those who care are more abundant than
originally thought. (Plus I am sure home theater drives some of it)

Have you done comparisons to analog if so what and on what analog gear?


This is a laugh. As it happens, I have compared vinyl and digital forms
of the same recording. You haven't. You've compared different
recordings of the same performance. The kinds of comparisons you've
done tell you absolutely nothing about the different recording
technologies, because there are so many other variables involved.

bob


I have read many reviews where all 3 formats have been touted to sound
better than redbook - dozens of them.

As for data - they have a higher sampling rate and are 24bit that in
itself carries a slew of measurement data - implied in the
implementation. Do you think the difference cannot be heard or isn't
better? (HDCD was not made for multi-format or surround - it was
specifically designed to improve 2 channel listening)

No I compared the same recording using the same masters - however some
were remastered - LP and CD. OK let's say you're right. I have
compared over a dozen LP's to their digital counterpart - in some cases
I have 4 versions of each. You say this tells me nothing about
different recording technologies because of too many variables. Give me
an example of the media you used that wasn't flawed - as you state.
Also - given that I used so many different versions of the same
recording and the LP won out in the majority of the cases this seems to
prove that LP's sound better even given the variables I mentioned.

Let's use Kansas Leftoveture - a very well recorded LP - especially
given it's mass produced. I have the original CD and LP as well as the
remastered CD and half-speed mastered LP. The half-speed master beats
them all - the remastered CD beats the standard LP but the standard LP
beats the original CD. (I have the same copies of Point of Know Return
and Miles Davis Kind of Blue and the results are the same)

Lastly - you have yet to state the equipment you used in the
comparisons. i assume the Technics wasn't your analog reference.


--